Newbie 993 - Game Over!

[Trachimbrod]

/confirm

I'm pretty excited!

[Trachimbrod]

Yeah, I'll probably be doing short forms for longer names too. I'd suggest "Trachim" or "Brod" for myself, but as long as it's clear, it doesn't matter.

[Trachimbrod]

I was gonna vote Mysterio for being first as well, but I don't want to pile on in RVS.

I've never played a game of Mafia before, though I've been watching a few games on MTGS which sparked my interest. I've played a few games IRL but those haven't been as serious and analytical as the forum games I've looked at.

I didn't think that line about not mislynching was significant, but I've never known how people actually pick up trails in RVS. I guess a "Don't mess up" could shake people a little.

[Trachimbrod]

I was gonna vote Mysterio for being first as well, but I don't want to pile on in RVS.

This just seems like you are following along with someones idea. Especially after Leech has explained the theory.

I guess I kind of am, though I've seen this in games I've watched before Leech did it here. I didn't know about the trend that Incognito discovered before Leech posted it, but I do find it suspicious to post before the mod is done sending out role PMs.

[Trachimbrod]

I don't have a policy for my voting yet, I can see the merits of voting to pressure, but right now I don't think I'll vote for anyone until I'd want everyone to vote for that person too. Mysterio is the guy I'm most suspicious of at the moment. The quick jab and retreat from Leech felt distracting, without a real case on himself to distract from in the first place, but maybe it's normal just to feel people out in the early game.

As for the "Don't mislynch" thing, I just read it as an attempt to be helpful. When it got pointed out, I realized that the advice was pretty redundant. It would be more suspicious to me if it happened during a situation like Thian described, with the game well under way.

[Trachimbrod]

Not at all. I'm saying that I won't vote until I would want everyone to vote with me, not that I won't vote unless it's with the current majority. I'm not setting this policy in stone, but it's what I'm most comfortable with right now.

Mysterio: Mostly for confirming before the mod finished sending PMs, and somewhat for what I said directly after what you quoted, "The quick jab and retreat from Leech felt distracting, without a real case on himself to distract from in the first place, but maybe it's normal just to feel people out in the early game."

[Trachimbrod]

I can see on rereading that the "from Leech" part could be confusing. I can be more clear, perhaps.

You mention backing off from Leech twice, in posts #35 and #40, as if you're afraid he didn't see that you're backing off the first time. It looks kind of like "Get attacked, counterattack and back off, hope the attacker backs off for parity." It looks calculated to me.

[Trachimbrod]

Not at all. I'm saying that I won't vote until I would want everyone to vote with me, not that I won't vote unless it's with the current majority. I'm not setting this policy in stone, but it's what I'm most comfortable with right now.

What you are saying is that you will withhold voting until you want that player lynched. This isn't the same thing as withholding a vote until you're comfortable with that player being lynched, you're clearly stating that you wont vote until the time you want a lynch to occur. I'm having a hard time justifying that in my mind. Would you care to enlighten us on why you feel that way?

Mysterio: Mostly for confirming before the mod finished sending PMs

Why is that a reason to be suspicious?

I'm not sure I understand. Is there a difference between being comfortable with a lynch, and wanting the lynch?

It's modgamery, I'd guess that the mafia might get PMs first. I don't take it seriously, it was going to be my reason for a random vote, but the game was past that stage by the time I was going to post, so I didn't make that vote. It's not a good suspicion, but it was there and nothing else was. Now that I think about it, I am more concerned and suspicious of the fact that he mentioned backing off from the same person twice in quick succession.

I like how this forum shows you new posts when you click submit. Upon rereading, I'm confused as to why you'd want to make that clear to Thian, because...as Leech just posted... it didn't seem related to his post.

[Trachimbrod]

Noted about L-3 not being dangerous. However, as my only reason at that time was that he posted first, it wasn't worth wagoning on. I wouldn't have wanted everyone else to vote for him just because he posted first.

What I mean is that I'd want the lynch. I don't care if I'm the first person voting or the last. I don't want to vote to pressure information out of someone if I don't have enough information already to want to see them lynched. I guess with 9 people it's okay to do that sort of thing though, and I may be too conservative, but I don't feel comfortable with voting to pressure.

[Trachimbrod]

I think I understand the point of confusion now. In my ideal situation, I would have a solid case that gave me and everyone else certainty, and be able to provide satisfactory answers to any rebuttals. When I explain it, it sounds too optimistic, but it's what I'm striving for. I may have to make some compromises to my voting policy, I'll think about it.

I don't see Leech caring that you stopped being suspicious of him, Mysterio, the issue was why you took two posts to say that you stopped being suspicious of him. It shows that you want him to care.

Could you please explain exactly what makes you so suspicious Leech again? I'm having trouble seeing your reason.

[Trachimbrod]

Could you please explain exactly what makes you so suspicious Leech again? I'm having trouble seeing your reason.

Blech, I meant to say "Could you please explain exactly what makes you so suspicious

of

Leech again? I'm having trouble seeing your reason."
Directed at Mysterio.

[Trachimbrod]

I'm not taking the post before the mod as a serious suspicion. There was nothing to go by at the very beginning, it did make me a little suspicious, so I was going to place a slightly-less-than-random vote on him for it. I agree that the strongest way to catch people is by behavior, and mod speculation is about as good as random.

I think Mysterio has had more scummy behavior than anyone else at this point, but like you said Thian, I'm basing it on his double backing off on posts 35 and 40. I think it has caused me to tunnelvision on Mysterio and Leech, and Hind and Thian have been out of focus in my reading. I'll have to take another look, I know there's content on Hind, didn't seem like much on Thian.

I think Leech's ridiculous vote was in the RVS, though he based it on a trend he'd heard about so it was less ridiculous to him. I'm starting to think I may be assuming too much and putting words into his mouth, though I think he addressed this point when steppen (I think it was steppen) brought it up, so I'll go look for that. It didn't look scummy to me either.

About the mislynch topic, it seems to me like everyone is trying to say the same thing, but the devil's in the details of how they say it. I'll read again and take a closer look at it.

Thian has posts in the topic, but I'm not getting any read. What do people think about Thian?
Thian, what do you think of the players that have been posting so far?

[Trachimbrod]

What is a "WoT"? I can't find it on http://mafiascum.net/wiki/index.php?tit ... reviations.

The problem for me is that some of the walls of text could be much more concise. Like Leech said, it's not very helpful to say that you find someone scummy because such a behavior is scummy, however it is very helpful when you can provide the specific example.

Mysterio's posts are in this nature. In 79, he takes a while to bring up an example (the ridiculous vote issue), and I didn't find the example compelling. I'm about ready to vote for Mysterio (with a compromised voting standard to my previous idealistic one), but I'd like a votecount first. I believe he's at L-2 right now (Leech, Hind, and Illume voting)? The day has moved fairly quickly so far.

I'd still like to know what you think about people, Thian. And hopefully Kirby and startransmission will check in soon. I don't want to put anyone at L-1 before two people have posted at all.

@mod: Votecount, please?

[Trachimbrod]

On Style: If you don't want to WoT up with lines of quotes, please at least give the number of the post that has the content you're referring to.

I hope the format I use in this post is clear.

I've got a few things to say about two of your responses in 87, Mysterio.

Spoiler: Part One of Post 87

You said you were backing off, and the fact that I continued to question you and pursue leads, not only from myself, but others does, in fact, give a lot of information about my role in this game. The fact that you just assumed I'd stop because you were backing off, gives us a lot of information about yours, as well. You're trying to claim that pressuring someone is scummy, but it isn't.

Our information is only as limited as you decide to make it. We started this day on the right note, and it will carry us through the entire phase. Saying "it's day 1" has no meaning whatsoever. Scum can be lynched on day one as long as we work for it. I'm eager to get discussion going, and catch scum slipping. The fact that I constantly pursue discussion, and questioning is another scum tell? Hardly.

I condensed your two points here.

Your reaction to me backing off showed, which I elaborated on earlier, an overzealous need to continue down weak leads to muddle up our efforts. Information is naturally limited due to many unknown factors, including possible powers, player habits, player pairings, bandwagons, night actions, etc. As a result, your reaction made it clear that you were not taking any of those things into account, which can only be due to a few reasons, the major one being that you're scum.

It's important to look at all leads. How can you take into account unknown information? All we can do is follow leads, and review them again with any new information we learn. It reads like you're saying that just because there's a lot of information we don't have, it's scummy to pursue the leads we do have.

Spoiler: Part Two of Post 87

The second town dies and gets confirmed, that means that every time they stated an opinion on a matter, that they were doing what they thought was best for the town. That means all of their previous arguments were legit arguments, and they actually felt the way they were claiming to.

Again, reiterating the same point over and over again. You tried to paint my earlier explanations as being in "defensive mode", because I happen to mention the same thing twice. Yet, you've mentioned this same point about mislynches being helpful more times than I can count. What does this say about you?

There's a big context difference here. It's defensive to volunteer twice that you're backing off. The discussion about potential value of mislynches was a fairly lengthy back and forth (lengthier than it should have been I think, because it really was a lot of repetition and I didn't get much from it.) and there is nothing wrong about keeping your stance constant.

The first part seems especially scummy to me. I'm still waiting on that vote count though.

Kirby: Why do you think Mysterio is VI town?

[Trachimbrod]

...Wow. Mysterio, did you read my entire post? In reading your 109 response to my 106, I'm flabbergasted. This post is a WoT, but I've tried to be concise, so please read it.

For part 1, you quote only the part where I ask how you expect people to take into account unknown information. There's always going to be unknown information, that's why we have to follow all leads since they'll return more information. Getting information by following leads is hardly a waste of time. And our leads were pretty limited (especially back then), we're not at a point where there's too many leads for us to pursue (I don't know if there's even a situation where all leads shouldn't be investigated as much as they can be). What does it mean to be cautious in following leads? I think any concern should be voiced and answered, at the risk of being repetitive, that'll bring a wealth of new information for us to consider.

For part 2, The context wasn't the same though. As I believe Leech said, Thian was asking for your opinion on how different voting styles can muddle things up, and you volunteered for a second time that you were backing off, which was a little much, so it became a lead to follow. Your defense in 55 includes a threat that you'll become suspicious of Leech if he continues down that lead further, which I find scummy. I see Leech pointed this out in 59, and I'm a little upset that I glanced over it the first time.

As for Leech keeping his stance constant through the mislynch discussion, that was information that was specifically being asked for, he had a clear reason to be repeating it. You say you felt like your stance on Leech was being asked for by Thian, making the context the same. To me it seems that Thian's question was quite clear, and you made a hasty leap. I'm not too sure about it anymore but I feel it's the kind of leap someone with a guilty conscience would make.

I count three votes on Mysterio. At this point I'm pretty convinced that Mysterio is scum or possibly VI town, and my vote on him is soon coming. I'm still waiting on that vote count though, and I'd like to hear some feedback on the above part of my post. Does this look as bad to other people as it does to me?

Mysterio, I'd like it if you could respond to my full part 1 and explain why you snipped only those two sentences in your 109 reply.

@mod: Vote count, pretty please?

Thian: From what I gather, no one asked what Mysterio thought of Leech after he said he backed down the first time. Mysterio says that he interpreted your question about voting styles as questioning about his former suspicion of Leech.

I also would like to hear from steppen and Illume again. Particularly Illume since he's voting and has promised details.

[Trachimbrod]

I was (and still am) interested in hearing what others thought of Myst's reply to the quotes I posted. I guess my 114 was too WoT for people to read?

The game shot out of the gates in the beginning, it's odd how we've come to a halt now. Is it really the WoT?

Kirby: You voted for Hind in 103, expecting to find a reason, and in 117, you say you found virtually nothing on him. And nothing on others? Do you know what caused this gut feeling at least?

It seems a little late in the game to have gut votes.

[Trachimbrod]

In the forum where I spectated mafia before joining a game here, I've never seen such adverse reactions to WoTs.

What would you like to hear about, Kirby? I've been posting quite a bit, though my more recent posts have been WoT.

[Trachimbrod]

I don't know what mafia game theory says, but yeah, we're out of RVS. I thought gut voting only happened then, and now that we've got some analysis going on, you should be able to rationally explain your votes.

[Trachimbrod]

I do think before I post. Perhaps there's not enough to thoroughly explain every vote, but there should be something besides gut now. I'm pretty sure everyone else who's voting has provided some reasoning.
(If Illume ever comes back, he's promised us some explanation)

Could you explain your voting style, if you have one?

[Trachimbrod]

I find myself skimming WoTs a little, but they do have content. It's a little frustrating that people seem to be ignoring them.

Mysterio, any intention to answer my 114? I miss the mod too, but commenting about it doesn't really help.

Kirby: If I understand correctly, you like having a vote on someone at all times, even when you can't provide a reason. What do you think is the benefit of this?

[Trachimbrod]

Thian: I'm having a hard time judging if your post 57 catch is just word nitpicking, or significant slip in this case.

When you ask me about my hesitance to band wagon, are you referring to the beginning of the game when I didn't want to cast the 2nd vote on Mysterio during RVS? I was going to vote in RVS on a minor suspicion, but I felt that as the 2nd vote, it would have implied a gravity behind my vote that was not actually there.

Mysterio: That's because I didn't find you addressed my concerns. You didn't so much clarify as just repeat yourself. Are you not saying that pursuing leads (whether you call them "weak" or not) muddles the game, wastes time, and takes attention from others? We have been voicing other concerns and questions to people besides you and Leech. We are capable of pursuing multiple leads. I don't think any concerns were just dropped dead because of a lead on you.

The lurkers are definitely not flying under the radar because we all keep mentioning them. They'll get scrutiny when they start posting content, but until then what else can we do?

And as for you backing Leech twice, that's not the only thing. That was the lead, and from the discussion it lead to, your responses have been poor.

Kirby: The vote is the sword, yes, but reason and logic are the eyes that help you strike true. I don't see the use of swinging blindly, hoping your gut is right. Would you be okay with the lynch of the person you are voting for now?

[Trachimbrod]

I have looked at the flash thing, the Newbie Guide, and the common abbreviations. Is there something you feel I should read?

[Trachimbrod]

I would not mind putting my name second, first, or last on a player that I think is scum. I am cautious, I see no reason not to be when we have time to spare for discussion. As I said in 150, I did not want to wagon on minor suspicion. As I said in 58:

Noted about L-3 not being dangerous. However, as my only reason at that time was that he posted first, it wasn't worth wagoning on. I wouldn't have wanted everyone else to vote for him just because he posted first.

I'm curious what reaction to putting someone at L-3 seems contrived to you, since I don't think I had a reaction to putting someone at L-3 besides the quote above. Elaborate if you can.

I also don't know how you got that I really did want a consensus prior to casting my vote. As I said in 47, 58, and repeated here, I would vote first for someone if I thought they were scum.

I did not approach putting any type of voting on Mysterio with caution because it would put him at L-3, rather I did not vote for him because I did not have a good reason to. Just look at the above quote.

[Trachimbrod]

Thian: until I'd want everyone to vote for that person too =/= until everyone comes to a consensus. As I've been saying, I'd vote before the consensus, I'd hope that my reasons could form the consensus if there isn't one.

I think I've been pretty clear now but you're reading what isn't there. I could be the first person voting, and think I have a good enough reason that others should vote for the same person too. I did not say that I would want everyone to come to an agreement prior to my vote. I am not just now saying that I would vote first for someone I think is scum, I've been saying it earlier too.

I think that voting for someone for first post is okay in RVS. I don't think it's an adequate reason to wagon on them. That is why I didn't place the second vote on Mysterio back then.

Kirby: Yes, I understand that one vote or two on a person isn't dangerous. I still think that one should have a good reason to vote outside of RVS.

[Trachimbrod]

Kirby: Seems like a wagon to me. I think in 39 Leech says it would be a wagon. Think Thian called it a wagon too, since I believe it's what he was referring to when asking about my hesitance to bandwagon. I've never seen three votes on the same person just for RVS, and I usually spectated larger games than this one. I'm sure you're exaggerating that three random votes on one person happens more often than not. I don't think a person is scum just because they vote without a good reason, but I do find it suspicious.

Mysterio: I can understand how some people would want to use their vote to pressure a response, but I expect people to respond to questions when asked even without being voted. I think as long as they do, the game doesn't stagnate.

I think the lead on you kept leading to more, which is why it kept going. I'll have to reread it now, but like I was saying, I don't think pursuing one lead closes the game to other scumhunting, nor are the lurkers truly flying under the radar. They've got some explaining to do when they get back (though they'll probably be replaced at this point).

[Trachimbrod]

Thian, I still don't see why you think I was afraid of putting someone at L-3, wary that it would result in a quick mislynch. I was going to vote for Mysterio in RVS for a reason that I don't consider strong enough to vote on outside of RVS. Wagoning would have taken us out of RVS, and while in retrospect that's a good thing, I didn't (and still don't) feel comfortable voting just to pressure. I intend for all of my votes (exlcuding one within RVS that wouldn't end RVS) to have good reasons behind them.

Like I said in 58, "I wouldn't have wanted everyone else to vote for him just because he posted first. "
Did I think Mysterio would get quicklynched because of my 2nd vote? No. However, when you consider the voting policy I had at the time, I would have been violating it if I did vote for a reason that wasn't good enough outside of RVS (which is where that vote would have taken us).

I've caught sick so my reread is still pending. Hopefully I can get it done Saturday or Sunday to decide if I still want to vote for Mysterio.

Also, I PMed the mod at the beginning of this game, but just in case, and for general knowledge:

@mod: I will be on vacation 16-20.

[Trachimbrod]

I wanted to apologize to everyone for disappearing. I forgot about the game during my vacation, and the prod didn't forward as an email for some reason, so I never ended up seeing it. So, I'm sorry for forgetting, and any damage I caused to the game.